I am all for tradition. I would have preferred the Big 12 Conference to have held together as it was. Remember, just a short while ago, people used to say Texas A&M played in the toughest conference in the country- the Big 12 South.  

But playing someone just for the sake of playing someone is not tradition. With a move to a new conference, you establish new rivalries, you build new traditions. Otherwise, why move?

By the way, on the hot topic of what the Big 12 should do to replace the loss of Texas A&M, someone posted a list of potential replacements on the internet. Here is what he wrote:

… The ideal replacement(s) should be able to bring fans and/or competitive rivalries to the Big 12. That being said, I narrowed my list of potential invites down to this ==>

University Of Houston,

Notre Dame,

Boise State,

Stanford,

Memphis,

Utah,

Rutgers/USF/Syracuse/UConn,

Louisiana Tech,

And here is my take on each potential invite:

 
University Of Houston---  It was in the same league with a number of Big 12 schools for decades, and never brought any fans nor competitive rivalries, so why now?

Notre Dame--- It has rejected the Big Ten, the league that made perfect geographical sense, a number of times. I don’t think a conference that makes NO geographical sense is what they have been holding on to.

Boise State--- It’ll be tough enough to bring the team in from the mountains of Idaho, let alone fans.

Stanford--- Stanford? Why not Harvard?

Memphis--- May I remind you their football team finished 1-11 last season.

Utah--- Two conference switches in two years? The exit fees are going to kill the school.

Rutgers/USF/Syracuse/UConn--- Why not just join the Big East all together?

Louisiana Tech--- Well, by process of elimination, this could well be the answer.